Johnny DEPP v Amber HEARD - Johnny Argues Relevance Of Amber's Past

hi everyone welcome back to my channel thank you so much for stopping by all right so today's video is going to be commenting on johnny's latest filing in the virginia defamation case which is his opposition to amber's motion for sanctions and motions in lemonade before we start this video if you haven't watched the previous video on this topic which i'll be putting down here and also linking in the description box please do because this entire filing from johnny is in response to amber's motions once you've watched that feel free to come back and see what johnny has to say so if you've watched that video then you'll remember that amber was trying to get the court to punish johnny for contempt of court and to exclude certain evidence against her we did a little exercise where i showed you examples of how johnny was in fact not in contempt of court because he's essentially done what the court exactly asked him to do and as i said in the last video the fact that amber was still unhappy with his answers does not mean that he's in contempt of court if you're ordered to supplement your answers and respond to interrogatories then that is what you must do to the best of your ability and that's exactly what johnny did at least that's what i could glean from all the documents and the evidence that have been filed in response by johnny's legal team and this is essentially what his team is arguing here but before we get to that i do want to briefly explain the first argument that they put forward which is a very technical kind of argument in the sense that they reference the circuit court practice manual section 1.07 which states that no more than one two week motion on the docket could be placed on any friday and what amber did in her last filing was she combined four motions into one each of which seeks to impose a separate severe limitation on johnny's case and as you can see he would be limited to a single five-page opposition to respond to four substantial limitations secondly they state that amber's request for draconian sanctions is unjustified draconian means very severe just excessively severe measures we talked about how amber wants to limit all of johnny's evidence to everything he's provided up until the 16th of august 2020 and this is eight months before the close of fact discovery that's a long time it's not like the discovery period was over or was nearing its end and johnny still hadn't provided any of the documents or evidence that's being requested as part of discovery he still had eight entire months to fulfill his discovery obligations now of course that's not to say that just because you have eight months you can take your time and submit it all you know right at the very end or at the last minute of course not but that's not what johnny's been doing as we discussed thoroughly in the last video he has been supplementing and providing evidence and responses as per his discovery obligations the rest of the paragraph essentially goes on to list and demonstrate to the court how johnny has actually been responding to everything that he's been requested to respond to and they're essentially doing what we did in my last video going through using certain interrogatories as examples and demonstrating how he has fulfilled his obligations they've also explained that some documents are not in his possession and are in the possession of third parties so they will be made discoverable as part of third party discovery and this includes documents reflecting disney's internal casting decisions which must be obtained from disney not johnny himself as he doesn't have it and other third-party discovery that have been delayed partly because of covid so these things are still pending they conclude that argument by saying that johnny has not violated this court's order but they go even further and state that if the court were to find that there were still deficiencies then he's more than happy and willing to correct them there's entirely no need for the incredibly harsh sanctions that amber is seeking to be imposed against johnny the second argument is essentially that amber's motions in lemonade are entirely premature so it's far too early for these motions to be held when the trial isn't even set to start until the 17th of may 2021. specifically they state that most evidentiary rulings particularly with respect to relevancy on hearsay must await the presentation of evidence in a trial context i didn't even consider this fact that it's far too early to even attempt to exclude this evidence we're still in the discovery process they also state that the course of discovery will provide the context for the court's eventual decision regarding the admissibility of this evidence this means that johnny needs this evidence in order to demonstrate to the court what his entire case is if it's limited at this point then he won't even have the chance to argue to the court not in the presence of a jury this is before the trial why he needs this evidence and how it's relevant to his case at that point the court will at least have this evidence before it and it can make an informed decision as to whether this evidence is admissible or not and lastly they argue that her emotions in lemonade are without merit firstly they state that evidence regarding her prior arrest and charges with regards to tasya vanree is plainly relevant to johnny's claim that amber fabricated her claims because she was the true perpetrator they also point out that amber successfully argued that she is entitled to discovery into johnny's prior arrests even though the arrests do not center on any of the issues that are relevant to this case at hand so if she was successful and is entitled to discovery regarding johnny's prior arrests then fairness would dictate that he is entitled to the same most importantly and this is actually something that i completely didn't even think about in my last video on this topic is the fact that by filing a counter claim amber has put her own reputation at issue so now it's not just a matter of johnny defending his reputation but it's a matter of inducing evidence that shows that whatever he said about her was not defamatory so if you'll remember she used the gq magazine article and various other ridiculous sources of material to claim that johnny defamed her now he's entitled to use evidence of her reputation of her background what she's done in her past which are crucial in assisting johnny to prove that he wasn't making defamatory statements they were true if amber never filed her counterclaim it would potentially be arguable that evidence of her prior arrest is not irrelevant but remember how i talked in the previous video on this topic where there is a balancing act between relevant or probative value rather and unfair prejudice and i did concede that maybe specifically with regards to the charges against her that argument could be made because the issue here is whether amber's statements in her op-ed were true or substantially true or not but the fact that she placed her reputation at issue by filing a counter claim significantly weakens that argument in my opinion secondly they talk about the charitable donations that she claims to have made using the seven million dollar divorce settlement that she received from johnny now she publicly claimed that she was going to donate every single cent of that settlement to charity and that this was not about the money amber as you'll remember from the previous video is trying to exclude any evidence that is relevant to any charitable donations she may have made johnny wants to induce this evidence because he wants to prove that she never made this donation and that she made her false claims to leverage a larger settlement now according to johnny's legal team a court in california has already agreed tentatively with johnny that amber put her donations at issue and that the truth of her claims to have donated the settlement proceeds is relevant and discoverable they argue that this evidence is directly relevant to amber's motives which again yes correct i learned through a fellow lawyer on twitter that charitable pledges are actually treated more as contracts in california so since charitable pledges are analyzed as a matter of contract law then the rules of contract law apply this means that pledges are not enforceable unless number one the pledger receives consideration for making the pledge which means they receive something in exchange for making the pledge or secondly the charity has detrimentally relied on the pledge in california what constitutes sufficient consideration is determined on a case-by-case basis so there's no hard and fast rule or a list of examples or situations that qualify as sufficient consideration an example is when let's say a building or hospital or a ward is named after the person making the pledge so a ward named the amber heard ward for example that has been found by courts in california to constitute sufficient consideration in this situation i am not aware of any such consideration that has been made or promised to amber it could have been done behind the scenes but i'm not aware of anything on a public level and as for detrimental reliance that essentially means that the charity relied on the person's pledge to its detriment so maybe it incurred significant losses or costs or it suddenly has obligations to third parties because of the pledge that was made now again in this situation i have no idea whether any of the charities she has pledged donations to have relied on that to their detriment if these two counts can be proven consideration and detrimental reliance then she could actually be held accountable for the false pledge that she has made but johnny's main point here is to demonstrate that she is a liar and as we discussed in previous videos that goes straight to her credibility it's very important for johnny to successfully paint her out to be a liar or someone who is not credible in the eyes of a jury and secondly to demonstrate that she had ulterior motives with regards to her false allegations so she wanted to use these allegations as leverage to get a much more substantial divorce settlement out of johnny the last point that they make is with regards to hearsay statements made in jennifer howell's declaration regarding what page told her again we've talked about this in previous videos but essentially the declaration insinuates that paige heard stated that amber was at fault not johnny now johnny's team are arguing that it's hearsay only if it's being deduced to prove that a certain allegation is true and that is the definition of hearsay if it's not being introduced to prove that something is true then it's not hearsay so for example sometimes statements can be introduced just to convey what the author's state of mind was if it goes to state of mind what they were feeling at the time when they made the statement then it's not being introduced to prove that a certain fact is true so for example if paige told jennifer howell i feel so sad about what's happening with amber and johnny that statement can be introduced just to convey that she felt sad about the state of their relationship it's not necessarily being introduced to prove anything i don't see what else this evidence could serve other than trying to prove that a certain allegation is true i could be wrong these lawyers are infinitely more experienced than i am so i am interested to see what they have to say on this and that is it based on all of these arguments they submit that the court should deny amber's improper multiple motions all these arguments are incredibly valid of course if amber is found to have breached the fairfax court practice manual with regards to filing more than the acceptable number of motions on any given friday then that in itself is grounds for dismissing all of her motions but then i suppose she could still refile them just within the rules you know not overdoing it in the one go so it's definitely the right and safest option to not only say that this was a procedural error but then go on to argue why they should all fail in order to preclude her from refiling them that's it for this video i hope it was informative i hope things were a little bit clearer johnny's legal documents are always very clear brief and just really nice and easy to read but i do understand that there is a lot of legal jargon being thrown around and it can be quite difficult to get around and comprehend sometimes and i'm always very happy to smooth things out for you all and to help explain things in plain english as always don't forget to let me know what you think in the comments below thank you so much for watching stay safe and i'll catch you in a future video bye [Music] you

Channel: Lost Beyond Pluto

Views: 44,385

Rating: 4.9624062 out of 5

Keywords: johnny depp, amber heard, johnny depp amber heard audio, johnny depp amber heard recording, johnny depp amber heard court, johnny depp amber heard case, johnny depp defamation, amber heard defamation, johnny depp amber heard defamation case, johnny depp amber heard court case, johnny depp amber heard trial, johnny depp amber heard defamation trial, amber heard defense, amber heard defence, amber heard counterclaim, amber heard counter claim, johnny depp trial delay

Id: V4QOaaUnlPY

Length: 13min 55sec (835 seconds)

Published: Sat Sep 26 2020